AOC predicts she won't be president — because Americans 'hate women'
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 3 years ago • 304 commentsBy: Emily Crane (New York Post)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says it's unlikely she could ever be elected president of the United States — because so many people in America "hate women" and "would never let that happen."
The socialist firebrand New York Democrat speculated about the possibilities of her launching a future White House bid in a wide-ranging and fawning cover interview with GQ magazine published Wednesday.
Ocasio-Cortez said that while she tries to hold onto the belief that anything is possible, her experience in Congress has "given me a front-row seat to how deeply and unconsciously, as well as consciously, so many people in this country hate women."
"And they hate women of color," added the 32-year-old, who was described in the article as the "political voice of a generation" and "bona fide culture celebrity."
"People ask me questions about the future. And realistically, I can't even tell you if I'm going to be alive in September. And that weighs very heavily on me. And it's not just the right wing. Misogyny transcends political ideology: left, right, center," the democratic socialist continued.
"I admit to sometimes believing that I live in a country that would never let that happen."
The socialist firebrand on the cover of GQ, which published Sept. 7. Cruz Valdez/GQ
Ocasio-Cortez said she struggles when young girls tell her they want her to be president one day.
"It's very difficult for me to talk about because it provokes a lot of inner conflict in that I never want to tell a little girl what she can't do," she said. "And I don't want to tell young people what is not possible. I've never been in the business of doing that. But at the same time…"
In addition to being a woman, the legislator claimed that her opposition to Wall Street could also hinder any potential bid for the presidency.
"Could [former President Barack] Obama have gotten elected without the kind of financial support that he had?" she said. "I don't know."
"Misogyny transcends political ideology: left, right, center," the democratic socialist said in her cover interview. Cruz Valdez/GQRep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez insists Americans despise "women of color."Nathan Howard/Getty Images
Ocasio-Cortez also theorized how, even if she were to be elected commander-in-chief, she'd face the wrath of the political system — from the Senate to the Supreme Court — that she says would impede her goals.
"There are still plenty of limitations," she claimed. "It's tough, it's really tough."
Elsewhere in the interview, the congresswoman spoke of the "open hostility" she encountered from her own Democratic Party colleagues after taking office in 2018.
"It was open hostility, open hostility to my presence, my existence," Ocasio-Cortez said.
"Since I got here, literally day one, even before day one, I've experienced a lot of targeting diminishment from my party. And the pervasiveness of that diminishment, it was all-encompassing at times. I feel a little more steady on my own two feet now.
"But would I say that I have the power to shift the elected federal Democratic Party? No."
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has previously criticized President Biden for not being progressive.Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Ocasio-Cortez also delved into her personal life and relationship with fiance Riley Roberts in the interview, as well as why she decided publicly reveal she had been raped in her early 20s.
Weeks after the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riots, the congresswoman took to Instagram to disclose that she was a survivor of sexual assault as she explained the trauma she relived during the insurrection.
"I could not talk about that day without disclosing it, because it was such a central part of my experience," Ocasio-Cortez said in the interview, referring to her account of having to hide in congressional offices as rioters stormed in.
"I felt like I could not really adequately communicate what that experience was without giving people the context of what I had lived through and what was being echoed, because so much of it was about resonance and fear of a thing that was not theoretical but a fear of a thing that I had experienced."
The congresswoman addressed the rape again when she spoke to anti-abortion protestors in Manhattan's Union Square after Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court in June.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez believes her chances for the White House are slim.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
She told GQ that she had carefully weighed her decision to open up further about being assaulted given how much her opponents - both on the left and right - have dissected her words since taking office.
"One major trauma that a lot of survivors of assault deal with is a struggle with being believed," she said. "There are aspects of it that I may never share because of the trauma of having that experience litigated in public."
Speaking about her notoriously private relationship with her fiance, Ocasio-Cortez said she questioned whether her being an independent, successful woman would affect them.
"The moment you start being yourself, they kind of freak out," she said. "I think it causes a conflict within them that they didn't even anticipate. It's not even a deception. It's just, they uncover insecurities that they didn't know were there."
But Ocasio-Cortez - who met Riley when they were 19 at Boston University — said the opposite happened when she was elected and thrust in the public eye.
"For him to experience us dating when I was still working as a waitress and a bartender through now and seeing how the world responds [to me], I think has been a very eye-opening experience for him as well," she said.
Tags
Who is online
61 visitors
This ridiculous narcissist claims that a woman can't win the presidency. They are oppressed, supposedly like her, don't ya know! So says the woman named after a Conquistador!
So how did she get elected to congress?
I'm sure there is a stray person out there who might find that sentence relevant, but I cant imagine who.
Apparently you found it relevant enough to comment.
She's an attention seeking drama queen moron. Even her own party can't stand her.
She was produced via what has become an all too common democrat primary formula. Radical elements dominate those things these days. All they need do is nominate a radical and party affiliation takes over in the general election.
Sort of like the 100s of radical election deniers that have been nominated?
So election denying is bad today? Hard to keep track with democrats position on the subject wholly dependent on who is doing the denying.
What conquistador was named Alexandria?
The fear of a NY Congresswoman is palpable.
And understandable as she is unapologetic and eloquent, agree or disagree with her policies. A force to be reckoned with, and a voice that will heard to match the needs of the times.
As opposed to her alter egos on the right; apologists all, ineloquent to a fault, and destined to be soon forgotten outside a comedy skit.
I just want to take in the glory of someone calling her eloquent. She's a left wing twitter troll. I guess if that's your idea of eloquence, she's your Queen.
She a left wing MTG. T
I can only hope you got paid for that.
Imagine fangirling for a someone who puts on a performative crying display over empty parking lots.
“Imagine fangirling for a someone who puts on a performative crying display over empty parking lots.”
Hah.
Imagine then, taking even a second to acknowledge her, dismiss her, and then contribute to a conversation about her.
Perhaps thou doth protest too much.
aking even a second to acknowledge her, dismiss her, and then contribute to a conversation about her.
Amusing things amuse me.
Do you admire everyone you comment on?
Is she though? I like her sometimes, and other times, she makes me laugh or shake my head. But is she a force, really?
I mean, she’s plenty mouthy (no disrespect intended). She tweets and talks and goes on tv, and all that. But does she actually drive change? Does she build effective coalitions, raise party money, get other people elected, or promote critical legislation? Does she get out the vote? In what way is she a force to be reckoned with?
AOC has tremendous charisma and the future is almost certain to be more progressive than the past. The sky is the limit for her, in time. I think she is 32 years old. In terms of politics, she has all the time in the world.
I think she does, and her brand of it obviously appeals to a certain percentage of the electorate. Unfortunately, that same sort of defiant, angry female persona turns off a lot of voters, too. It’s the kind of thing that hurts people like Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren.
I think AOC needs to do something more substantive than be an exciting young mouth in the House to attain higher office. But she’s young, and she’s got time. As her seniority grows, she will accumulate real power in committees.
No, it was Bartender.
She makes idiots look smart.
AOC even makes Kamala Hairless look sound like a smart person.
Wow. That’s actually a solid take. I hadn’t thought about that before. I can’t say that’s wrong. Would I prefer AOC to Harris for VP? Yeah, maybe.
Seriously? Kindergarden ‘wit’? Mangling names in itself is low-grade and immature, but this does not even make sense.
Disregarding the witless jab, I agree that Harris is entirely unimpressive and should never be so close to the presidency.
32 years old and growing older every day. How long before she is considered to old and out of touch?
Problem with being a radical; there is always someone younger and more radical than you coming along.
Queen Elizabeth read this hard-luck story and fell the fuck over.
She has a broken brain. It’s sad that some people go through needing to feel persecuted and oppressed for some reason.
the scary part is that she is a representative in government with actual power, rather than just being drag on the people around her,
Evidently BU calls that "World History," as did Karl Marx.
gee, I thought the topic was AOC, [removed]
Not sure if it was broke before but her brain got a good washing by academia. A four year liberal/progressive fluff and buff compliments of BU.
While I agree that what she believes in is broken, there's nothing wrong with her brain. She isn't feeling sorry for herself in saying what she did. Rather, it is a political move calculated to achieve a political goal. Specifically, it is intended to manipulate shallow thinkers from thinking about what her policies are and, instead, support her on the emotional grounds of misogyny. It goes something like this...
AOC opponent: Your policies on immigration and the border are wrong because (list of reasons).
AOC: You hate women.
She does this so that she doesn't have to address the charge made by her opponent and instead, redirects everything to something that is objectively impossible to prove. It is a tactic many on the Left continually employ in order to avoid having to defend their policies. When someone states an objection to a desired goal, just accuse them of some sort of emotional hot button, like misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism and whatever other unprovable emotional issue you can come up with.
AOC: I have a vagina vote for me.
The word socialist is used to describe Ocasio-Cortez four times within a span of just 315 words. Yet nothing in the GQ interview appears to be about socialism.
LOL. At the least , the NY Post article is biased against AOC.
Socialism?
I'm still trying to figure out how a white woman, a daughter of an architect, is "oppressed?"
He's trying to use it as a distraction. A failed attempt but an attempt nonetheless.
The same way millionaire football and basketball players are "oppressed"?
Who went to one of the more expensive colleges in the country ....
You are being kind. Around here there is a nick name for BU which I would never use.(It's blatantly anti-Semitic). Let's just say that a BU education is nowhere as good as a BC education.
Especially since she lived all of her K-12 life in a private home in upscale, privileged Yorktown Heights, NY before her privileged BU years.
On separate occasions in 2021, she claimed that she was stalked and sexually assaulted in her 20s. She goes on to claim that she never filed police reports, because she didn't think police would believe her. It's easy to make claims 10+ years after the fact! She also wanted us to believe that she felt that she was going to die on January 6, 2021 even though she wasn't even in the Capitol Building.
This woman has serious, unaddressed mental health issues, IMO. Even though she's miraculously achieved fame without a shred of intellectual honesty, she's learned to use her feminine wiles to do it. She actually thought that people would be interested in watching a video of her applying makeup!
She is a victim of her own mind.
LMAO!
So true!
Hasn't she identified herself as a member of Democratic Socialists of America?
Hold on;
Chalk up a big one for Drinker!!!!
AKA: A slam-dunk!
According to an interview she did she is a member.
You people need to get real for a change. There is only one reason she would be described as a socialist 4 times within a few short paragraphs, and that is to bang on the idea that she is a radical.
The GQ article does not seem to be about that, but the NY Post, now a right wing rag, doesnt care.
You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig........................she is radical. Look at all the free shit she screams for and the "everybody gets a trophy" equality mentality.
Yes she is. So is your president who is enacting everything AOC believes in.
The GQ article does not seem to be about that,
It's a man's. mostly fashion, magazine.
but the NY Post, now a right wing rag, doesnt care.
So far the Post has made the Times look like a lying sack of shit.
[removed]
Or to drive home the point that she is, in fact, a SOCIALIST. You know, like she ADMITS TO.
The irony is astonishing.
It is a biased publication and she is a radical. 2 + 2 is predictably turning out to equal 4.
Quit dissing pigs by comparing them to AOC
How do you separate a pig lover from his pig? With a crowbar!
Didn't you say something yesterday about wanting to scald pigs before butchering them? Is this interest in pork something new or does it go back to you OK roots?
Aw, relax. Even presidents ramble on with labels.
Nice picture of you. The guy in the red shirt is a bit fat though.
You don’t need to use a period if you’re not writing sentences.
Socialism is oft-used (INCORRECTLY) as a synonym for social democracy — aka the benevolent-state-centric use of capitalism to fund public programs as seen in Nordic nations and throughout Europe.
The USA too has social democracy, albeit in a weaker form.
There is no fixing this; the word 'socialism' is so overloaded now that it has become virtually meaningless.
Exactly, when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says that she is a democratic socialist, what does that mean? What does she think about capitalism? Can it be reformed or do the markets intrinsically harm people and should be abolished? What does reform or abolishment look like?
Bernie claims to be a socialist, is he looking to get rid of capitalism?
Are they ignorant of the meaning of the term or just playing to there base?
I am pretty sure she means social democracy. Democratic socialists use social democracy as a stepping stone. The terminology is utterly polluted
My guess is that she is good with small 'c' capitalism (people working small businesses) but is against large 'C' capitalism as is typified by transnational corporations. To wit, she probably favors competition, hard work, etc. and is against powerful monopolies. I have seen no indication that she knows much of socialism per Marx.
Market economies are good. They span both capitalism and socialism (per Marx). Demand economies like the former U.S.S.R. are bad and should be reconsidered ONLY when we have a much better understanding of the complex dynamics of a competitive market based economy. (We are nowhere close at the moment.)
Good question.
No. Bernie goes after powerful concentrations of wealth and power. He is a great fan of capitalism with a small 'c'.
Bernie contradicted himself left and right when running for PotUS. And I think Bernie is light years ahead of AOC in understanding these principles. I do not understand why Bernie ever called himself a socialist ... the only positive is to differentiate but at every other turn the label is a major negative.
I agree.
She is either unable or has chosen to not explain the kind of socialism that she’s talking about. Of course, Bernie never explained what he really meant either. I see both as populists as Trump is, obviously they have different groups of disgruntled, angry supporters and so they promote differing policies to assuage that anger.
To me, one word for Bernie's actions and to AOC as well.
VOTES. It's the be all end all reason for what they say and do. A lot of other politicians of all ideologies use the same tactics.
If the one word is 'socialism' then you might as well use the word 'glicktoplex' because it has about the same meaning as 'socialism' without qualification.
If someone claims they support socialism one must ask them how they define the term in order to get any meaning from the declaration.
Bernie basically supports the social democracy of the Nordic nations.
Socialism , social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.
It seems very straightforward. Why all the fuss over what the word means?
In my lifetime, we have had various examples of Socialist economies. All of them fail sooner or later. One thing I've noticed. All along the way there were those (obviously Socialists) who inform us that each failure wasn't really "Socialism." That must be the reason for all the controversy over a simple economic system that has appealed to so many full time students.
Correct. Is that what you think Bernie seeks? That is, do you think Bernie seeks changing our economic system from capitalism (private ownership/control of productive resources of the economy) to socialism?
Because, as I noted, the word is overloaded in meaning.
My point is that the word 'socialism' is anything but well-defined when used in sentences. There are many overloaded definitions for the word so there is no way to know what a person means unless they qualify the word.
I am not a socialist and I will tell you that socialism (per Marx) has never existed. There has never been a 'first-world' nation where the public owned and controlled the productive resources of their economy. There have been plenty of nations where the state has owned and controlled same. Both are naively (ignorantly) labeled 'socialism' yet are (and this should be obvious) profoundly different.
I'm a capitalist but recognize that unless you're completely heartless, you shouldn't force an elderly retired person to pay the supply/demand rate of gas or electric during the middle of winter or middle of summer where their lives would be at risk simply because they couldn't afford to keep the heat or AC on. That's where a social safety net and government subsidies should come into play so that the power company can keep charging market rates, but we don't have tens of thousands of people dying of heat stroke or freezing to death simply because they are too old, disabled or infirm to work and pay the market rate for necessities.
I think the ideal, and what America has been striving for since the inception of social security, Medicare, welfare, food stamps and unemployment benefits, is a capitalist society with a heart.
Republicans scream and stamp their feet claiming the "heart" should only be provided through Churches and non-profits and the government should stay out of it. Democrats tend to disagree and think the government and thus all of us collectively through taxation should support those in need. Republicans call that socialism even when it clearly is not, but they have pounded the fantasy definition into the heads of their members just like so many rightwing conspiracy theorists have pounded the fantasy of a 'deep state' into their member's heads.
As long as Republicans keep repeating the same bullshit narrative about what socialism is (and the fantasy 'deep state') they can keep their members in a perpetual state of fear which of course Republican politicians use to motivate their voting base to keep them in power as a check on that fantasy fear. And pointing out they're fucking lying just makes them sink deeper into their delusion.
Unfettered capitalism is akin to libertarianism or anachro-capitalism. These are dog eat dog economic philosophies.
Capitalism creates poverty among a segment of the population. There has never been a time or a place since the dawn of capitalism where it has not created poverty alongside wealth. Social safety net programs are simply the price we must pay to have a working capitalism for everyone. Sensible people do not object.
Is someone advocating that?
The poorest countries in the world aren't poor because of 'unfettered capitalism", they are poor because of a lack of investment capital, heavy government intervention and regulation of business.
.
I am talking about the United States. Our social safety net is for Americans. You have a way of always trying to shift the topic.
Has trickle down economics worked for America? Our income inequality is the highest it has ever been.
Yes. Observe those who defend all profiteering as 'fair game'. Capitalism (small 'c') is a very good system which encourages competition and hard work and (often) rewards those efforts. Capitalism (large 'c') is a game of control (up to oppression) and the players of said game are the largest transnational corporations and states.
I was talking about extreme poverty.
Of course.
The topic was socialism, democratic socialism, poverty and capitalism. I shifted nothing.
Oh, and tweeting and charisma.
In the US, 1 in 9 is self-employed, in India it is 19 out of 20. Surprisingly, many more Indians immigrate here rather than American emigrate there.
Unitary Politics (large 'P') is a game of control (up to oppression) and the plays of said game want much great control, for the state, of the largest corporations.
If large corporations are not "controlled" to some extent by the government, do you seriously believe they will act in a way that promotes the common good? There is no evidence of this.
Where did you get that statistic? What I see is about 50% and the definition of self-employed does not mean strictly owner of a business but rather someone who does not have a single paying entity; think of 1099 workers.
According to the latest figures released by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), as of May 2022, the number of self-employed people in the US is at over ten million (10.02M)_
.
Where did you get the India stat?
I first wrote it from memory.
Since you asked I've looked it up and found:
The argument is control or no control but rather what type and how much.
In the early 80's more than 42 % of the world lived in extreme poverty today it is less than 10%. Capitalism did that
In third world and developing countries, this could mean owning a vegetable stand or vulcanizing shop out of a literal shack. Yes, they are businesses, but not like what we define owning businesses here.
Bernie says he wants "college for all,' "housing for all," "free child care & pre K for all," "reproductive health care for all," etc, etc etc. So, the answer is that Bernie is a true Socialist. He wants all of the above, yet the specifics on how we will pay for all of that are missing. That always comes later.
That is, do you think Bernie seeks changing our economic system from capitalism (private ownership/control of productive resources of the economy) to socialism?
Yes.
Yes
Yes
Do you understand how public ownership is achieved?
Perhaps you could give us an example.
Do you recognize the problem of someone calling 'socialism' the practice of government hosted public services?
There is a fine line between the basic services government provides and Socialism. Safety & security is a basic function of government.
Some even claim that services like the post office, the military, etc. are 'socialism'.
I'm not one of them.
Some claim social security, etc. is 'socialism'.
Social Security is the most popular government program in the world. It has become the vital safety net in American society. Is it one of the basic items government is supposed to provide? I say no . Is it Socialistic? It is a touch of Socialism. Many Americans depend on it and politicly can never be taken away.
My point is that the word 'socialism' is anything but well-defined when used in sentences. There are many overloaded definitions for the word so there is no way to know what a person means unless they qualify the word.
It seems very clear to me.
I am not a socialist and I will tell you that socialism (per Marx) has never existed. There has never been a ' first-world ' nation where the public owned and controlled the productive resources of their economy. There have been plenty of nations where the state has owned and controlled same. Both are naively ( ignorantly ) labeled 'socialism' yet are (and this should be obvious) profoundly different.
I disagree. All of the failed authoritarian states we see around the world today are either Socialist or Marxist. What was Venezuela? The idea of the public owning and controlling the productive resources of an economy cannot work. Do you know why? Because what the people really need and want can only be determined by the Market. Planned economies can never get it right. An economy btw is a very fragile thing. Never fix what is not broken.
The Iron Maiden said it best:
"The philosophical reason for which we are against nationalization and for private enterprise is because we believe that economic progress comes from the inventiveness, ability, determination and the pioneering spirit of extraordinary men and women. If they cannot exercise that spirit here, they will go away to another free enterprise country which will then make more economic progress than we do. We ought, in fact, to be encouraging small firms and small companies, because the extent to which innovation comes through these companies is tremendous."
And since you, as you say, are not a Socialist, I don't expect that you'll have any problem with what the Great Margaret Thatcher said.
Who doesn't like free chicken?
Yes he does! And that is exactly following the social democracy playbook. Bernie is a social democrat ... particularly in tune with the social democracy of the Nordic nations. I just explained this.
Social democracy is not socialism. A little more detail: social democracy = highly regulated capitalist engine funding social programs administered by government.
How, given you provided a definition, do you equate what Bernie wants with public control over the productive resources of the economy?
No, Vic, there is NOT! Public services are an entirely different factor from the ownership and control of the resources of an economy. All modern nations have public services. Increasing the amount of public services does not make you 'socialist' ... it does, however, make you more of a social democracy. The USA is a mild social democracy. The Nordic nations are mature, more saturated social democracies.
State capitalism. It was an authoritarian state expropriating private property (e.g. land, businesses) and running them as state enterprises. On top of that, it was an attempt to implement a control economy (vs. a market economy). It was an example of the worst thing that one can do. Now, do you actually believe the people of Venezuela ever had control over the productive resources of their economy under what you call 'socialism'?
You are conflating public ownership of the productive resources of an economy with a command economy. The two are different. Market-based socialism is the most common form of socialism discussed today (theory). The main reason is that command economies are far too complex to implement. We might be able to do that in the future but we have no chance of doing so today.
Is it really so hard for you to comprehend that one need not be a socialist to be informed on socialism? And Margaret Thatcher used the term 'socialism' to incorrectly refer to European social democracy. Back to my point of the term 'socialism' being overloaded and meaningless. Thatcher was pointing out the problem with having too many government programs funded by the capitalist workforce. Social democracy!
Which Americans are undeserving of a good education, comprehensive healthcare, food, a living wage and a safe place to call home?
Ahh yes, the selling point!
Offer him my apologies and warn him that if I ever run into him that I'll give him a good kick in the ass.
In other words, you don't think they taught economics at Oxford University?
Thatcher was pointing out the problem with having too many government programs funded by the capitalist workforce.
Had she only had the chance to go to school with you!
I got you down as a Sanders man.
Do you know what yesterday was?
Interesting thing is that Bernie just cannot quite be pinned down on how exactly all the "free stuff" he wants to give out will be paid for.
I'm sure that it would be covered like all extra stuff is, we will borrow more.
According to AOC, "You just pay for it."
Keeping it simple, AOC is good at that.
We'll just have to trust him. After all, we just learned that isn't really a Socialist after all.
I wonder why the DNC stifled his nomination bid twice? He does seem to have a lot of support among young democrats.
Is sarcasm all you have to offer? There are plenty of people who use the term ' socialism ' to refer to ' social democracy '. As I told you upfront, the word ' socialism ' is overloaded: it is used loosely to refer to all sorts of incompatible systems. The word, abused, has become a mess.
To have an intelligent discussion of ' socialism ', one must use definitions and qualification. The word ' socialism ' unqualified is so overloaded as to be meaningless.
If Thatcher were to speak of socialism per Marx she would not use the phrase " other people's money " because that concept makes zero sense under that paradigm. It does, however, make great sense under social democracy — the system in place in Great Britain and elsewhere in Europe.
Note:
This is social democracy run to the extreme where the system has essentially devolved into state capitalism.
Under Marx, there is no concept of the state owning the productive resources of the economy. The people (in particular, the proletariat) own and run all of the businesses as owner/workers. There is no "other people's money". Thatcher was clearly not speaking of socialism per Marx. And that makes sense since there was (and is) no nation whose economy is based on socialism per Marx.
She was speaking of systems that were in existence at the time. Those systems were state capitalism of the USSR, et. al. and social democracy in Europe. Both are lumped into the overloaded term 'socialism'.
Resorting to this crap instead of having a discussion. What I have described in my prior post is easily verified with serious research. You can either have an adult discussion or engage in sarcasm. Why do you choose sarcasm?
I'm just a little amazed that anyone would go to great lengths to distinguish between Socialism and a "Socialist Democrat" the way you have.
Why do you choose sarcasm?
Because I asked you to give us an example of "public ownership" and you ignored me.
Why does this amaze you? The concept of socialism per Marx is profoundly different than social democracy. People are constantly tossing the label 'socialism' around and have all sorts of different meaning. Further, social democracy is a form of capitalism. Don't you think it is good for people to understand that? The USA has a mild social democracy; don't you think people should realize that too?
This is a lame tactic Vic. I went into a detailed discussion which you have largely ignored. You resorted to sarcasm on my content and now come back with the feeble excuse that you did this because you think I did not specifically address one of your items.
Note how your one item got into the discussion:
My point here ⇡ is that there has never been a system where the public actually owned and controlled the productive resources of their economy.
You come back with this response:
You clearly missed the point of what I described. I was stating that there is no example of an economy based on this principle. One way such an economy might evolve (some time in the future) is if worker coops (businesses collectively owned by the workers) were to become dominant. But that, again, was NOT the point I was making.
That's like saying "I'm just a little amazed that anyone would go to great lengths to distinguish between "Living" and "Unliving" the way you have. I mean, they both have the word 'living' in them so they must be the same thing...".
Socialism: noun - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
As pointed out, there is a HUGE difference between a government that uses taxes to pay for (from private vendors) good and services for the elderly, disabled, infirm and children and an "authoritarian state expropriating private property (e.g. land, businesses) and running them as state enterprises" as was pointed out.
Just because you apparently can't see the glaring differences doesn't mean they're not there.
If Bernie were a socialist (again anchoring on socialism per Marx) then he would be calling for a revolution of the proletariat where the workers seize their workplaces and take control over the productive resources of the economy. That is what Marx envisioned as 'socialism' or the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. In his time, revolution was more common and had a chance for success. Today, the thought is absurd (at least in the USA).
Marx however held that this revolution would need to take place after a mature industrial base had been established — one that could provide the resources for all the people in the nation. He also stipulated that it would require the proletariat be sophisticated enough in their understanding of their situation to pull this off.
Bernie might want a world where everyone has economic freedom ... collective control over the productive resources of the economy. But it seems to me he is smart enough to realize that, very likely, nobody alive today will ever see such a system in the USA. In a practical sense, capitalism is our system for the foreseeable future and Bernie necessarily must work with that. Ergo, social democracy. Social democracy is government regulated capitalism that funnels revenue from the capitalist engine to provide for programs such as health, education, etc. That is Bernie's game. Bernie is a social democrat.
Bernie labeling himself a 'socialist' is stupid on many levels. First, the word on its own has many meanings (is overloaded). Second, the word (largely due to the expropriation of the word by the former USSR) has major league negative connotations. I just never have understood why Bernie would go there. He should just use the label that matches his policies: social democracy.
Exactly, the man owns three homes.
Of course not; the only way to pay for this is to dramatically increase taxes / borrowing. One could argue that a wholesale reengineering of government could rip out sufficient waste to fund this, but there is no chance in hell that our government systems will undergo such a transformation.
Ok TiG
Further, social democracy is a form of capitalism.
I see. So we shouldn't fear it?
Don't you think it is good for people to understand that?
I think it is good for all US students to be taught as much as possible about economics.
The USA has a mild social democracy; don't you think people should realize that too?
I think many people realize the unique form of the US economy. Many don't understand the federal debt. This "mild democracy" as you call it was a fixation with Paul Ryan. You may recall his attempt to reform it:
"The military is not the reason we’ve got fiscal problems. It is entitlements,” Mr. Ryan said, blaming the growth of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security for a deficit that’s likely to top $1 trillion a year for the foreseeable future."
Have I got it?
My point here ⇡ is that there has never been a system where the public actually owned and controlled the productive resources of their economy.
I see. So you think there has never been a single example? I vaguely recall two car companies in France. One was a private company and the other public. The private company was taxed enough to fund the public one. Maybe not?
One way such an economy might evolve (some time in the future) is if worker coops (businesses collectively owned by the workers) were to become dominant. But that, again, was NOT the point I was making.
Ok TiG, I think we have both given the subject more attention than it deserves. You explained it well.
That really is irrelevant. Personal property is different from private property. There is nothing in Bernie's philosophy that suggests people cannot accumulate personal property / wealth.
Only the living would do so.
As pointed out, there is a HUGE difference between a government that uses taxes to pay for (from private vendors) good and services for the elderly, disabled, infirm and children and an "authoritarian state expropriating private property (e.g. land, businesses) and running them as state enterprises" as was pointed out.
And that is a blatant defense of "Socialism."
Thanks.
Yup. It might make it easier for him to get elected too!
Oh, did I need a good laugh!
This is not per me, it is a fact. I have provided a summary but you can do research and see this clearly for yourself.
Who is talking about fear? Social democracy is in place in the USA today. Any economy that taxes its capitalist engine and uses the revenue to fund social programs is, by definition, engaging in social democracy. Thus there is no reason to fear this system. The problem with any particular economic system is when it goes to an extreme. That is what we should fear. Right now our system is running on the extreme of consolidated wealth and power by transnational corporations. Does that not concern you or do you not realize it is happening?
It is mild social democracy, not mild democracy. And yes, medicare, etc. is a fine example of social democracy in the USA.
It is not what I think, it is a fact. No first-world nation has ever had an economy based on socialism per Marx. There are, however, examples of the principles of Marxism in organizations such as Mondragon (there are hundreds of major coops in the world). But that is a cooperative corporation, not a nation.
I disagree, people are clearly confused about 'socialism' and wind up holding positions out of ignorance. They wind up rejecting good ideas because the ideas are labeled 'socialism'. For example, a national healthcare system for the USA is labeled 'socialized' and 'socialism' and thus categorically rejected by millions. Yet we could devise a system that is based on standardization and sharing through national administration and implemented predominantly through competitive private enterprise. But the 'socialism' stigma keeps us from pursuing this.
Ignorance is counterproductive and can be dangerous. One should reject ideas on their merits, not because of some boogey-man label and a cloud of confused ignorance.
Unbelievable.
I did say OK? I'm not disputing it.
They wind up rejecting good ideas because the ideas are labeled 'socialism'.
But you are not a Socialist?
For example, a national healthcare system for the USA is labeled 'socialized' and 'socialism' and thus categorically rejected by millions. Yet we could devise a system that is based on standardization and sharing through national administration and implemented predominantly through competitive private enterprise. But the 'socialism' stigma keeps us from pursuing this.
Here we can have a real debate. I think the national healthcare system in the USA is a terrible combination of two systems. On the one hand the government used a socialized system to pay for it and on the other hand the healthcare industry is a wide open free enterprise sector charging whatever it pleases. It is one area where I wish we had done what Europe has done: control costs!
Why did we go half way down the road on national health care?
One should reject ideas on their merits, not because of some boogey-man label
I agree and I'm sure Bernie would also agree!
Do you think that one is a socialist simply by noting that some socialist ideas are good? Are you automatically a D if you agree with some D policy?
Do you think workplace cooperatives are a good idea? If so, would you ipso facto be a socialist?
So by your opening reasoning does that make you a social democrat?
This so much, too bad I cannot upvote more than once. It seems that the try for Medicare for All will once again raise it's head. That is an incredibly stupid fix to the problem because it tries to only fix from one side of the problem. We saw the issue when Covid first hit and hospitals halted all elective care, we had hospitals laying off large groups of nurses and closing floors and almost having to close their doors (there were a good number of rural hospitals that did have to close their doors) all because the Medicare re-imbursement rates are not sufficient to meet costs. Having worked in the medical insurance area for a great many years I also know of many doctors / medical groups that would close shop rather than just accept the Medicare rates as they would just lose money. Without controlling the costs there is no way the government can fix the problem. We have the same issue with higher education in this country, the recent forgiveness program for college loans does nothing to control costs and in fact will help encourage higher borrowing and higher tuitions with the expectation that the government will just once again forgive the loans down the road.
Sometimes I think that our federal government was the true authors of the script 'Dumb and Dumber'.
No. BTW I once did that here. What I actually said was that every economic system has some good selling points. It was a very interesting discussion, TiG.
Are you automatically a D if you agree with some D policy?
Not necessarily.
Do you think workplace cooperatives are a good idea?
I'm not sure.
If so, would you ipso facto be a socialist?
Yes.
So by your opening reasoning does that make you a social democrat?
It means that such a policy would be better than the one we now have. How about what I asked you? Why didn't Obamacare control costs?
How long have they been talking about allowing Medicare to negotiate costs?
There are times when I'm convinced that our elected representatives are dedicated to keeping the professional class comfortable.
Exactly, we need that to be available for taxing.
Bernie is modest enough that he doesn't talk about his personal wealth.
You think that someone who supports coops is ipso facto a socialist?? If one supports national healthcare, is one ipso facto a social democrat? If one supports border control, is one ipso facto an R?
Seriously,Vic, you leap to label based on support of a single factor? What a great way to oversimplify reality and, in result, produce a bizarro perception of reality.
Because it is a result of partisan politics rather than a serious attempt to solve our healthcare problem.
I know, right? It's like talking to a brick wall. It reminds me of a joke.
Two conservatives were walking through the woods when they came upon a pair of tracks. The first conservative said "Those are moose tracks." The second conservative disagreed "Nope, those are wolf tracks.". They were still arguing when the train hit them.
Yes, but not because of what you describe, and possibly not even intentionally. He's sort of a quasi-socialist. At least that's what he says.
Bernie claims to simply want to tax all your money and spend it on social programs. In itself, that's not actually socialist.
He wants to provide some of those services through nationalizing various industries, which IS socialist. He wants to nationalize the health insurance industry, for example.
The problem with all of these ideas is that you very quickly run out of other people's money. He doesn't admit that, because he and his followers live in the fictional world of Bernie Land, where they use Bernie Math, so he pretends all of his idiocy will work.
When it doesn't, and reality proves that Ayn Rand had a point, he'll be forced to nationalize more and more industries...which of course makes him a true, full-blown socialist.
Unusual, normally the area around the railbed is kept clear and is only in the woods if abandoned.
Correct. It is social democracy.
That would be state capitalism (and also a key part of fascism), not socialism (per Marx). Socialism (per Marx) is an interim stage between capitalism and communism (per Marx .. entirely different from communism per the former USSR) wherein the proletariat (the workers) are in control of the productive resources of the economy. Nationalizing industries puts the control under the state, not the people.
Agreed. A 'benevolent' state with such power will almost certainly screw things up. The normal equilibrium established by a competitive market no longer exists.
Expropriation of the private sector by the state is not socialism per Marx; it is state capitalism (the predominant system of the former USSR) and could well be fascism depending upon the circumstances. If it were socialism per Marx then the people in general would have increasing economic freedom; they (not the state and not private capitalist owners) would collectively control the productive resources of the economy. The systems historically labeled as 'socialism' have been the exact opposite — where the people are controlled and exploited.
Last year I had a heart procedure with a couple complications. The total hospital bill was almost a quarter of a million dollars. Medicare paid almost all of it.
It's a fairy tale distinction. In the real world, with any population of any size, "the people" and "the state" become interchangeable almost immediately.
So nationalizing an industry is de-facto bringing the means of production under control of "the people".
Describing "socialism per Marx" is sort of describing Never-Never Land, including but not limited to the incredibly unrealistic directions on getting from here to there.
Increasing from what? Certainly not from a capitalist system.
Because that's where they always go. Almost immediately.
I'm not sure the math would support that.
I had to have surgery a while back. I saw the bill and it was a little over 250k.
The people and the state are not interchangeable. There is a profound distinction between the state controlling the productive resources of the economy and the people being able to do so with a democratic process. For example, many theoretical models have a regionalized system which allows capital and resource allocations to be done in a distributed fashion where local communities compete over businesses they will support in their communities. In addition, models wherein businesses are predominantly workplace democracy, necessarily distribute control given each worker is also part owner.
These are all theoretical so I have no problem with you considering them impractical or unproven; that is fair criticism. But it is incorrect to deem state ownership/control and demos ownership/control to be the same. We will not see anything like this in our lifetimes because it is indeed impractical under extant conditions, but it would be a mistake to presume that our reality will remain unchanged or that future human beings can never devise a system under this philosophy that is practical for their environment.
Absolutely not. The examples of this not being so are numerous. Nationalizing an industry is anything but defacto providing control to the people. Do you, for example, hold that the people of Venezuela or the former USSR have/had control over the productive resources of their economies? If so, you have a very strange definition for the word 'control' or 'economy'.
Irrelevant. It is what it is. Socialism per Marx is the most definitive philosophy of socialism in existence. The fact that it is impractical today as Marx presented it does not change the fact that it is the core definition of socialism. The theoretical models for socialism, based on this philosophy, consider the modern world and vary from Marx' vision (e.g. dictatorship of the proletariat) in that they are inherently incremental. They still are not something we will ever see in our lifetimes since many conditions are simply not satisfied, but I would not be so bold as to declare they (or some variant) will never be the preferred economic paradigm in the future.
Well I think we would need to flesh this out in substantially more detail before making claims about the mathematics. Part of the fleshing out is gaining a clear view on what the word 'waste' actually means in this context. There is a ton of spending taking place by our federal government. Given what other nations can do, I am inclined to think the USA could do likewise. I also pretty much know that in business and especially in government, there is typically major league waste. Not easily corrected, but it is there to be tapped.
I'm glad that you recovered.
For that hospital bill, that was the total bill from the hospital. What was the Medicare allowed and how much did the hospital write off? How many days were you in the hospital and how many of those days were in an ICU bed vs a regular bed?
The issue is the Medicare reimbursement rates vs the hospital bill. The Medicare rates are very much reduced from the overall bill and the hospital is forced to accept the rates if they want to work with the federal government, there is no negotiation in what Medicare will pay. Medicare paid most of your bill, do you mean that your co-pay's and/or deductibles were very low? Did you actually get to see the initial hospital bill and the final bill on what Medicare allowed and how much the hospital had to write off?
In theory, maybe. In reality, the state is how the people are organized. It is how human beings meet the basic need for structure.
Let's be honest, they are proven to be so completely impractical that they cannot actually be implemented.
In this world of hyper-unrealistic theory, the state is simply the organizational structure by which the will of the people is carried out.
I never suggested it wasn't the core. I simply said Marx wrote a fairy tale.
Let me see if I can consolidate what we're talking about over several posts spread pretty far apart.
The question here is "how would Bernie pay for the things he wants to give away"? ...and then "can it be paid for from savings in current waste"?
If we remember that he's been promising it for decades, we'll assume that one of those things is healthcare, and there isn't enough government waste to get close to paying for that.
"BernieCare" would actually cost over $4trillion in the first year, escalating from there. The US govt brought in about $4trillion in tax revenue for 2021. Even if we got to 0% waste, there is nowhere near enough money.
My cancer treatment lasted for 18 months with 3 hospital stays totaling 78 days. Medicare paid approx. $650,000, my secondary insurer (Tricare) picked up most of the rest, $68,000 and a significant amount was written off, although I've never added it up.
The difference exists. It is a fact that the people are NOT the state. Our current inability to devise a practical system that allows demos control without enabling state control does not change the fundamental distinction between demos and state.
I am being entirely honest.
First, how can you say something that has never been attempted is proven impractical? Lenin violated Marx' philosophy before he even began his campaign. Marx held that socialism is based on a mature industrial base and a mature capitalist system that had become so top heavy that the proletariat were: a) well aware of their situation and b) were sophisticated enough to achieve a revolutionary change in control and paradigm. None of this was true of Russia in 1917. Next Lenin almost immediately seized state-level control. The demos never had control and this only worsened with Stalin. Since the whole concept of Socialism per Marx is control by the demos, the label of 'socialism' applied to the former USSR is absurd on the onset. But of course using the label of 'socialism' for marketing reasons made great sense back then and that is why Lenin, Stalin, ... use the term. Not any different than labeling a new spending bill the 'Inflation Reduction Act'.
Second, I am not going to be so bold as to say that future generations will never evolve to a different paradigm. Seems to me that it would be silly to think that they would remain unchanged. We continue to see changes in paradigm with factors such as cryptocurrency, distributed workplace, individual entrepreneurs (e.g. the YouTuber phenomenon, cyber businesses, etc.). The brick & mortar industrial paradigm is waning. We will see the need for fewer individuals 'reporting for work' due to fundamental changes such as AI replacing white-collar knowledge worker jobs (and no alternate jobs for the displaced workers to rise to ... unlike the similar technological impact on manufacturing) and as the population increases without a commensurate increase in jobs (a decrease is almost certainty) we will be forced into change; hard change.
On what grounds would one, given the above changes that are taking place in the present and in the short-term, hold that many decades in the future societies would not be unrecognizable to us today? Like I said, I think 'unrecognizable' is more likely than 'pretty much what we have now'.
So what? My point is that people use the term socialism without understanding what they are talking about. It matters not how practical the Marxian philosophy. It does matter if someone calls anything they dislike 'socialism' rather than use well-defined terms like state capitalism, fascism, social democracy, etc. to specifically identify their target.
So rather than simply cry 'socialism', we would be far better served by identifying an increase in social democracy as a problem and speaking intelligently about how to deal with it. Putting forth an amorphous term like 'socialism' (unqualified) ends intelligent discussion at its onset. To wit, those who complain about socialism (unqualified) are offering emotion rather than thoughtful notions.
I do not think he can. That is not, however, what we were talking about.
Is Bernie's concept the only one that you will accept for a healthcare system? Seems to me that we have an extent system and we have waste. We know that it is impossible to use our existing resources to produce an effective national healthcare system (one that, IMO, should be centrally standardized by the government and implemented in a competitive market)? I do not buy that.
Bernie is a dreamer. Don't limit yourself to his rhetoric. I have never given Bernie's promises any credence. But the basic idea of national healthcare I think makes great sense and there are plenty of ways to approach this.
Morning Drinker..I am three years down the track stem cell replacement, hospital stays, has to be well over half a million by now.. medications were $20,000 a month but as I am on a trial they are free.. the government has now put them on the free list...
So far all up have not paid one cent and no longer have health insurance. Stopped it years ago.
I actual head back to St Vincent's Melbourne tomorrow..not been there for near on 1.5 years COVID does have its advantages..
I have decided to hire a plane one hour trip compared with five hours in a car...my cousin's son will be the pilot..
Stay well and live long..
I was in two hospitals. The bill from one was 85,000 and from the other one was 170,000. Medicare Advantage paid a little less than 250,000. I was in the hospitals for 22 days. I think I was in cardiac ICU for 5 or 6 days, I cant remember which.
You as well. Happy skies.
I just saw that you’re having a particularly bad flu season this year. Hope you’re well past getting your shot. It on my list for Fri.
That presumes it hasn't been attempted and just failed instantly.... which it would be prone to do.
Exactly.
There is no chance of things remaining unchanged. I just don't think we'll move in that direction. Too many fundamental human nature issues stand in the way.
Well...yeah. But the term socialism is certainly not unique in that aspect. That's just the unintended consequence of a society so efficient that cognitive effort is optional.
Going by history, Jack. I need not presume anything.
I agree on that. Where we go is a bit difficult to predict, but it is true that human beings tend to seek leaders to follow. Leadership almost certainly means power and politics and thus access to abuse. Note, however, that this is likely what naysayers said when our founders were proposing a monarchy-free federated constitutional Republic. Note also that even our founders did not think it possible for the demos to elect the PotUS without many safeguards like the human electors.
Of course, but right now the term 'socialism' is the one we are discussing.
Would be interesting to see how much was written off. Cancer treatments can be very expensive as it's treatments that run over multiple days as you experienced. Costs can vary depending on the type of cancer you have, the cost for a round of chemotherapy can run anywhere from $10,000 to $200,000 depending on the type of cancer. If you end up having multiple runs of chemo (and 18 month trip kind of suggests multiple rounds) then the cost can go even higher.
The average cost for cancer treatment is around $48,000 a year, but some types of cancer can run as high as $1,000,000.
Glad you beat the cancer, hope you stay free for the rest of your life.
Were those bills the Medicare bills or the original bills from the hospital? Did they show how much was written off due to the Medicare limits?
I had Stage 4 abdominal cancer that originated in my appendix (pretty rare). Treatment consisted of 8 infusions of chemo (40 hours each) followed by Cytoreductive surgery with a 90 min intraperitoneal hypothermic chemoperfusion before flushing and closing me up. I started surgery prep at 0630 and woke up in surgical ICU at 0730 the next day. 2nd and 3rd order effects required chest surgery to repair diagram injury and pleural effusions (both lungs),cased by cancer removal. Final surgery was to reverse the temporary ileostomy that the first surgery required. Concluded with another round of 8 chemo sessions (extra insurance that I probably didn't need).
One of my large bills beyond hospital and chemo was for intravenous total parenteral nutrition (TPN) as I didn't eat for 9 months and needed supplemental TPN for another 4 months.
Currently I get a CT scan every 4 months and blood panels every three. The only treatment I still require is a drug for the chemo induced neuropathy in my feet and hands.
I had a great local oncological team a an exceptional surgical team at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. I know that I'm a very lucky man. This experience has dramatically changed how I think about health care and how it should be paid for.
I was very gracious and listened to all you had to say and you wind up by saying I leap to label and that I simplify.
I wish you could leave the personal stuff out, but so be it.
I commented on what you wrote, not on you as a person. This is a feeble attempt (and all meta) to accuse me of making things personal.
Read what I wrote:
There is a difference between making statements about you as a person (e.g. Vic is a simpleton, etc.) versus critical assessments of the content you have provided.
Note: you did not clarify your meaning or rebut what I wrote, you just went to meta.
Avro...all good here..had my flu vaccination and four COVID vaccinations...
Last I saw there are around 2,000 infections a day, hospital cases are down to low 200s and deaths per day approx 10 to 15 in Victoria.
I have avoided both COVID and the flu and still do the basics... avoid large crowds in confined spaces, wash my hands and wear a mask...
And live, I refused to hide away and went about my daily life and routine...and I can't wait to hit the waves again..sun sand and surf...roll on Summer..🐳🐳🐳
Um-hum...Let me leave you with this TiG. There was a book written in 1962, that is still very relevant today, entitled Capitalism and Freedom.
I highly recommend it for you and our readers.
That implies I am against capitalism or that I do not understand capitalism.
Absolutely, a proud member.
While I disagree that America "hates women", I do understand where she is likely coming from. The fact is America has basically been run by white Christian men since our founding and we've never had a female President. This is mostly due to indoctrinated headship beliefs where traditionally many religious believers dismiss women as viable candidates for positions of political power, even by many women themselves.
Today, this general acceptance that women should "stay in their place" is mostly only shared by conservative Republicans.
" When asked whether the respondent hoped there would be a female president, only 16 percent of GOP men and 20 percent of Republican women said yes ."
Why Republican Women Don't Want A Female President | HuffPost Latest News
" I still remember hearing men joke, time and again, “Can you imagine giving a woman our nuclear codes? They’d want to blow up Russia every time they got their periods!”.
"I often feel that I can talk about my anger and pain over the many times males were enabled and allowed to do whatever they wanted to my body, but does it really matter? Does anyone really hear this, and more importantly, does it change anything? Or how about how many times I was demeaned, belittled, criticized, or publicly humiliated because I demonstrated feminine qualities at work instead of masculine? Or how about the many times that I was paid less than my male coworkers, even when I had more experience and education? Or…
There are countless stories like this. Countless times I have felt powerless, afraid, and unheard. How can I express what that feels like? And to white, Christian, hetero, cisgender men, really, how can I impart the weight of this?"
" I only long for a world in which we value the feminine as much as we value the masculine. Where women aren’t constantly judged for their sexuality. Where we make as much money as our male counterparts. Where our leadership is valued."
No, We Don’t Really Want a Female President | by Yael Wolfe | An Injustice! (aninjusticemag.com)
And of course due to the indoctrinated white, Christian, hetero, cisgender conservatives we have moved backwards when it comes to women's rights as they were stripped of their right to privacy and bodily autonomy by those conservatives who demanded their right to force their indoctrinated religious beliefs and misogyny on others.
So, while I may not think it's "hate", there is certainly a culture of gender bigotry alive and well mostly among religious conservatives that continues to hold our nation back true gender equality which is what I believe AOC is referring to.
I don't understand why she would even be thinking or speculating on becoming the President. At 33 years of age, her only adult experience is college, tending bar and not yet 4 years as a Congresswoman. Maybe it's just the hubris and narcissism that so many politicians have
Don't forget the parties in Westchester.
Seems she has a far better understanding of your average American than a silver spoon born conman and reality TV show host who's never done an honest day's work in his life with two dozen accusations of sexual misconduct and six bankruptcies.
Wow. It took longer than I thought but there it is - the obligatory Trump comment.
I thought he was talking about John Fetterman
Maybe Jim Bakker as well?
It's pretty childish actually. I guess it would mean more if there were more to it than their hurt feelings. I never thought this many so called "adults" would hold such an unfounded grudge like this.
Unfortunately it just shows her as needy and immature.
She actually has a lot in common with him, both with hubris, hyperbole and narcissism. I don't think that either are fit for political office.
They love to play whatabout...l
Let us be fair. She has thus far achieved one thing: She kept 25,000 jobs out of NYC.
I thought it was a given that "the hubris and narcissism that so many politicians have" was already a reference to the Tangerine Tyrant.
It is pretty funny to see how many conservative carp are jumping in outrage at this AOC comment. Lots of open gaping mouths gasping for air but not actually saying anything worth listening to. But hey, even brain damaged bigots are entitled to their moronic chauvinistic opinions.
AOC is very good looking, young, intelligent , and with a lot of charisma. They fear her.
I thought hat's to be expected from somebody of her "caliber".
You didn't think. You went straight with the bullshit. Nothing in this seed had a goddamn thing to do with the former POTUS. But you HAD to bring him in. And for what? A chance to say "look at me"?
And you expect to be taken seriously.
Anything to deflect from the failures within their ranks.
Considering just 16% of Republican men would vote for ANY woman for President, at least they are equal opportunity offenders since they don't just discriminate against Democratic women.
Basically, all these conservative males, not a lady amongst them here it seems, are clearly threatened by the revelation that many if not most conservative Republicans are in fact bigoted misogynists who don't necessarily "hate" women, they just don't trust them and sure as hell wouldn't vote a woman into any position of power above them. This entire seed is dripping with thinly veiled misogyny.
Not that I had to look it up, but for your benefit so you can understand what the word means and that I've been using it exactly as intended, here is the definition:
Misogynist: noun - a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.
I think the fact that 84% of Republicans wouldn't vote for a woman for President no matter who she was and what party she was in simply because she was a female is the very definition of "strongly prejudiced against women".
Its humorous to watch people AOC could intellectually run rings around try to comment on her intelligence.
I've always asserted that the Democrats and the left fear him. And for the very reason you stated. Why else would they STILL be going after him.
How does it work? On an article about a Democrat, you went straight to Trump. EVERY time there is an article about a Democrat you all do this.
Too late. He's there. That much is evident.
Ok. Now you are asking too much.
Yet that wasn't the case with those Republicans I was talking about.
"When asked whether the respondent hoped there would be a female president, only 16 percent of GOP men and 20 percent of Republican women said yes ."
Having 84% of Republican men refusing support for ANY female for President has absolutely ZERO to do with "policy", its pure prejudice against women.
There is no need for rightwing conservatives to pretend that what upsets them about AOC is her policies, they are upset by every Democrats policies. But what really gets these conservatives panties in a twist about AOC is the fact that she is a young vocal female who has been calling out the prevalent misogyny among conservatives which clearly has pissed off those 'good ol' boys' who long for the days when they and other white male Christians ran everything and women were only allowed to be seen and not heard.
Ah, I see, because the 84% of Republican men who said they "hope" there wouldn't be a female President would of course vote for one if given the option. /s
Nope.
As is believing that those who hope there won't be a female President would turn around and vote for one. Your bizarre desperate illogical retort would be funny if it wasn't so fucking sad.
because the 84% of Republican men who said they "hope" there wouldn't be a female President would of course vote for one if given the option. /s
SO in your would, the majority of Democratic men who said the same didn't vote for Hillary Clinton right?
Lol.
These men wouldn't vote for AOC if she was a man either.
And not one was personal bankruptcy. Business fail and file bankruptcy all the time. It is part of doing business
Accusations are meaningless. You could be accused of child abuse to and pedophilia but that would not make it so.
All part of doing business for those whose intent was to scrape as much money as they can from a business deal and then slit its throat so they don't have to pay back the workers that were hired to create the business. Trying to pretend dirty Donald is a 'good businessman' is like trying to pretend shit doesn't stink.
Bankruptcy is a last resort for those who have done everything they can to make a profitable business but through some terrible circumstances were unable to fulfil their goal. The tangerine lying sack of shit who skimmed off millions from businesses then ran them into the ground so he wouldn't have to pay the workers isn't 'business', it's straight up fraud. Just because some fat fuck scum bag works the system to make profit while others suffer isn't technically "illegal" doesn't mean he isn't a fat fuck scum bag.
Name a woman that has run for president that has been worthy of the job.
“Name a woman that has run for president that has been worthy of the job.”
Wow.
Given the standing processes effectively eliminating them from consideration, it is no surprise. Name, using more than one finger, regardless of party affiliation, just which ‘males’ met the demands of the office in the last half century.
Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush, George W Bush, Donald J. Trump and even thought I didn't care for them or their policies, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
You will notice that I excluded the current occupant of the white house since he is the most incompetent person as president since James Earl Carter.
You and I are going to disagree about Trump, but the rest of that list is pretty sound.
Kay Bailey Hutchison, Condolezza Rice, Kristi Noem, and hundreds of others are laughing their asses off at this.
In a study conducted in 2014, where the most likely female presidents would have been Hillary or Liz Warren.
The study itself says:
But let's don't mention that. You go back to parroting whatever Huffy Post wants you to believe.
This article is basically the Reader's Digest version of the original GQ offering that came with the title ' AOC's Fight for the Future'. Although the author refrained from spurious attacks. the seeder and his followers to no surprise did not.
The original article without the clickbait title can be found here:
I doubt I'll be around to see it, because it won be anytime soon, but I do fully expect her to be a leading candidate for the presidency one day.
That's entirely possible, she does not appear to be adverse to learning.
With her ambition, work ethic and talent, how could anyone doubt that one day, she could be a contender.
There. That’s how you stay on the board.
And pork belly, pulled pork, spare ribs, ham, ham hocks, ham salad, loin roast, chops, sausages, banh mi, chile verde, sate babi, moo manao, fat back, kalua pig, suckling pig, saumagen, schwenkbraten, kassler, moo shu, vindaloo, carnitas, spam and so much more.
If she wants to be prez, all she needs to do is present a more pleasing package. Flash a little cleavage. Show a little more leg. Wink and smile more. If she can do that, I predict a landslide victory.
I’m only half joking. I do believe it would work. It’s sad, but it would work.
It worked in Finland.
from the Mexican Delicacy calling me misogynistic the other day, thats funny
Guess the whole thing went over your head.
yea , i guess i ducked. So it is ok for Tacos' to joke about the looks of AOC, but not for me to joke about Ann. Sorry, but i, as well as yourself can say whatever under the terms here, and we should BOTH be able to joke about people, as long as not attacking other members imho, but, perhaps you are just too high, and i too short, as over my head I B leave is what you said. Perhaps i need heels. Mabe Ann or AOC could help me pick some out....
There is a difference between joking about someone and attacking them on the basis of sex. Also, I said I was only half joking. It’s a fact that people get elected based on their looks. My comment was about that. Yours was a straight up mean-spirited joke about her looking like a man and served no purpose other than to tear her down for not being feminine enough for you.
Wow, how about i was Fully Joking, not Half joking, so claim your superiority over someone else. I don't insult, or convey hostility to others, whence i am serious, and if I take a joke too far, i will gladly walk it back, leave, or apologize dependent that which will properly rectify the situation. I am not a PC correct person, never was, never will be, i am better at insulting myself than most others, and will, without a cause or mercy, cause i know my weaknesses. So just take a xchill pill to lower your temperature, I make off color jokes, but jokingly, and love to battle via insults, especially face to face. I do not particularly like Ann Coulter, as she has shown to be a vicious bitch on occasion, i think her skin is thick enough to handle my joking insults, and if not, FCK HER ! but , just joking Ann, as i am heterosexual,
Not the point.
You’re the one who is angrily debating an exchange from another seed to attack me in this seed. So if anyone needs to chill, it’s you.
I’ll explain it further since you are unable or unwilling to understand the difference, so far. Here, in a seed about whether or not AOC can get elected president, I suggested that a strategy for her would be to soften her image in a way that might be sexually appealing to a bigger part of the electorate because that’s a real thing in politics.
By contrast, in a seed about Ann Coulter’s political views, you attacked her on the grounds that you think she looks mannish because she allegedly has an Adam’s apple - which, even if true, is not something she could do anything about, and has zero to do with the seed itself.
Maybe that seed, was an ADAMS APPLE SEED !
Hillary Clinton was almost elected PotUS. If she can get that far there is no question that a woman PotUS is in our near future.
Thank God that "almost" only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and thermonuclear weapons. This country sure dodged a bullet that day!
And she lost to the new guy. TWICE.
You missed again
That's as silly as a child who is 10 years, 7 months saying that he's almost 11. "A miss is as good as a mile", "close, but no cigar" ... i.e., a failure remains a failure.
I hope it will happen one day, and I hope I live to see it. But, the woman candidate needs to not carry as much negative, radical baggage as Hillary and AOC have.
You missed my point too. Here, let me spell it out for you:
There was nothing silly about what I wrote.
Watching you try to coax conservatives into understanding the easily understood point you made above is like watching someone trying to teach a rock to roll over...
"Come on, you can do it Rocky, you can do it... Will it help if I glue some googly eyes to you?"...
Those candidates do not include AOC in any way shape or form.
That debatable
I agree given her current age, experience, and positions.
What is the point of making such a juvenile (and witless) comment?
There was no reason to post such a patronizing, condescending comment, TiG. Other people might want or need your tutorials, but I do not.
You and others might want to spend some time learning about over a century of Hillary's predecessors who laid the groundwork for her.
And here we go with the misinformation. Clinton didn't "break any new ground". That ground was broken in 1872 with the nomination of Victoria Claflin Woodhull.
.
FFS do some goddamn research.
Your reply was faux obtuseness. My comment was crystal clear yet you chose to recast it into something stupid that you could ridicule.
Engage in faux obtuseness and I will respond accordingly. Pretend to not understand clear English and I will speak to you according to your pretense.
Why? Is this your latest strawman where you implicitly claim that I was arguing that Hillary is the only woman who has broken barriers for women?
Do you consider any of what I listed to be incorrect?:
If so, offer a thoughtful rebuttal.
Do you understand what is meant by the term " major party"? Here is what I wrote:
Woodhull was not the nominee of a major party; she was the nominee of a recently formed "Equal Rights Party". Do you somehow think that the "Equal Rights Party" was a major party? Do you also think that the Green party is a major party? The USA currently has two major parties: Democrats and Republicans.
Yet again, you fail to read, pen an over-the-top snarky comment, and end up looking foolish.
For your future comments, here is the definition of " major party ":
Case in point: @12.2.10